« What we need in America | Home
The body would be all foot?
By Jonathan Bryan | June 8, 2009
Inexplicably, the ole website is back up. Not sure what happened there, but anyway, St Athanasius made an interesting argument (a long time ago) against the universe coming into existence spontaneously or “automatically”:
“In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinction of things argues not of spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the designer and maker of all.” - From “On the Incarnation”
So the argument is simply:
1. If the universe came about spontaneously, there would be no distinctions among things. (S>~D)
2. But there are distinctions among things. (D)
3. Therefore, it is not the case that the universe came about spontaneously (~S from 1,2 Modus hocus pocus tonens).
The argument, being perfectly valid, needs only its premises to be defended. The second premise is obviously true. As Athanasius points out, there are differences between the hand and foot, making them distinct. The first premise, however, is rather difficult. Why should we think it true that if it were the case that the universe came about spontaneously, that there would be no distinctions among things? Well, one way to argue for the first premise is to first argue that the universe did not come about spontaneously. As everyone knows who has dutifully done their truth tables in logic class, if both sides of the conditional are false, the proposition as a whole is true (for example, “If that’s not a hamster, then my name isn’t Captain Barbarian!” is true so long as it is false that that’s not a hamster, and false that my name isn’t Captain Barbarian.) So all we need is another good argument that the universe did not come about spontaneously (say, the Cosmological argument, for example) to argue for the truth of premise one, and St. Athanasius’ argument will work! Problem solved.
Topics: Debating White Monkees |